On the P5 forum, I floated an idea which was triggered by the suggestion that the PAC may be more open to change than previously suspected. Because that idea affects some teams not now in the P5, I thought I would float it here as well.

Essentially, the Big 12 - often thought to be in its death throes - would remain intact in my proposal. Instead of the Texhoma schools moving west to the PAC, as some have suggested, I propose that the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon move east to the B12. That would bring the B12 to 16 members, and quell talk of megaconferences of 18, 20 or even more.

The remaining 6 PAC members would rebuild by adding Boise State, San Diego State and Fresno State from the MWC plus independent BYU. These schools could never have hoped to be invited to the current PAC largely because of resistance from the California schools. Fresno isn't a critical add here, but it would add a second school in the behemoth that is the state of California to help recruiting. This new PAC, which I presume would still legally own the PACN, would sell that albatross to the B12 which could make it very profitable where the PAC never could.

A 7th bowl would be added to the New Year's Six, allowing for both the new PAC plus the AAC to get autobids. Now, we can redesignate the six autobid conferences as the NY6 instead of the P6, and that's how I will refer to them.

At this point, there really aren't any more truly viable expansion candidates for the SEC, ACC and B1G, bringing some long term stability to the realignment process.

At 81 schools, the new NY6 would have produced more than 99% of all the appearances in the BCS/CFP top 14 (7 NY bowls X 2 teams) rankings over the past 15 years. No team outside the NY6 would have been ranked in the top 8 during that period. By every metric, the remaining four FBS conferences lag far behind the NY6, eliminating any reasonable complaints about exclusion from "the club".

The only downside I see is that it could kill the CR board, forcing us all to find something else to talk about.

Never is a long time. For the PAC schools, it could mean their conference remaining as is for the foreseeable future. That may be acceptable for some of them, but others may like the idea of being a member of the strongest conference on the field, which is also more profitable than the one they are in now. And, if they could all move without having to give up a single rivalry game in the process, that might not look so bad.

Now, I am making an assumption here with which you may not agree. I am assuming that the PAC will never be able to attract Texas and Oklahoma, which means there is no combination of other programs the PAC might add which would make it stronger, on the field or financially. If the status quo is acceptable long term to all 12 current PAC members, then you are probably right. I'm not sure it is.

(01-27-2018 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote: On the P5 forum, I floated an idea which was triggered by the suggestion that the PAC may be more open to change than previously suspected. Because that idea affects some teams not now in the P5, I thought I would float it here as well.

Essentially, the Big 12 - often thought to be in its death throes - would remain intact in my proposal. Instead of the Texhoma schools moving west to the PAC, as some have suggested, I propose that the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon move east to the B12. That would bring the B12 to 16 members, and quell talk of megaconferences of 18, 20 or even more.

The remaining 6 PAC members would rebuild by adding Boise State, San Diego State and Fresno State from the MWC plus independent BYU. These schools could never have hoped to be invited to the current PAC largely because of resistance from the California schools. Fresno isn't a critical add here, but it would add a second school in the behemoth that is the state of California to help recruiting. This new PAC, which I presume would still legally own the PACN, would sell that albatross to the B12 which could make it very profitable where the PAC never could.

A 7th bowl would be added to the New Year's Six, allowing for both the new PAC plus the AAC to get autobids. Now, we can redesignate the six autobid conferences as the NY6 instead of the P6, and that's how I will refer to them.

At this point, there really aren't any more truly viable expansion candidates for the SEC, ACC and B1G, bringing some long term stability to the realignment process.

At 81 schools, the new NY6 would have produced more than 99% of all the appearances in the BCS/CFP top 14 (7 NY bowls X 2 teams) rankings over the past 15 years. No team outside the NY6 would have been ranked in the top 8 during that period. By every metric, the remaining four FBS conferences lag far behind the NY6, eliminating any reasonable complaints about exclusion from "the club".

The only downside I see is that it could kill the CR board, forcing us all to find something else to talk about.

Wait...wait...I have to catch my breath....

So, you have the University of Colorado...who LEFT the Big XII to jump to the PAC...and the University of Utah, still in a gutted "PAC" that has been rebuilt with some of the old MW...

Meanwhile, you have the California schools AND Oregon and Washington JOINING the Big XII schools.

This is "DavidST" worthy insanity... Really...

A question: How many schools have EVER defected from the PAC conference for another, similar level conference? Seriously here. I'm not talking about schools that had to make an economic choice to drop down or discontinue FB, I'm talking about members leaving for their own self-interest and moving to another, peer conference?

Now another question: How many schools have left the BIG XII for another, peer conference?

Now, if you have answered those two questions, then answer me this...which is the more stable, the more well-run Conference? And which conference, therefore, would you predict would be more likely to stay together and prosper going forward?

And, a much better scenario that you could have proposed is this: The Big XII manages to peel-off Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, USC, and UCLA. That scenario, at least makes some sort of sense. But it still defies reality.

(01-27-2018 11:16 AM)ken d Wrote: On the P5 forum, I floated an idea which was triggered by the suggestion that the PAC may be more open to change than previously suspected. Because that idea affects some teams not now in the P5, I thought I would float it here as well.

Essentially, the Big 12 - often thought to be in its death throes - would remain intact in my proposal. Instead of the Texhoma schools moving west to the PAC, as some have suggested, I propose that the 4 California schools plus Washington and Oregon move east to the B12. That would bring the B12 to 16 members, and quell talk of megaconferences of 18, 20 or even more.

The remaining 6 PAC members would rebuild by adding Boise State, San Diego State and Fresno State from the MWC plus independent BYU. These schools could never have hoped to be invited to the current PAC largely because of resistance from the California schools. Fresno isn't a critical add here, but it would add a second school in the behemoth that is the state of California to help recruiting. This new PAC, which I presume would still legally own the PACN, would sell that albatross to the B12 which could make it very profitable where the PAC never could.

A 7th bowl would be added to the New Year's Six, allowing for both the new PAC plus the AAC to get autobids. Now, we can redesignate the six autobid conferences as the NY6 instead of the P6, and that's how I will refer to them.

At this point, there really aren't any more truly viable expansion candidates for the SEC, ACC and B1G, bringing some long term stability to the realignment process.

At 81 schools, the new NY6 would have produced more than 99% of all the appearances in the BCS/CFP top 14 (7 NY bowls X 2 teams) rankings over the past 15 years. No team outside the NY6 would have been ranked in the top 8 during that period. By every metric, the remaining four FBS conferences lag far behind the NY6, eliminating any reasonable complaints about exclusion from "the club".

The only downside I see is that it could kill the CR board, forcing us all to find something else to talk about.

Wait...wait...I have to catch my breath....

So, you have the University of Colorado...who LEFT the Big XII to jump to the PAC...and the University of Utah, still in a gutted "PAC" that has been rebuilt with some of the old MW...

Meanwhile, you have the California schools AND Oregon and Washington JOINING the Big XII schools.

This is "DavidST" worthy insanity... Really...

A question: How many schools have EVER defected from the PAC conference for another, similar level conference? Seriously here. I'm not talking about schools that had to make an economic choice to drop down or discontinue FB, I'm talking about members leaving for their own self-interest and moving to another, peer conference?

Now another question: How many schools have left the BIG XII for another, peer conference?

Now, if you have answered those two questions, then answer me this...which is the more stable, the more well-run Conference? And which conference, therefore, would you predict would be more likely to stay together and prosper going forward?

And, a much better scenario that you could have proposed is this: The Big XII manages to peel-off Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, USC, and UCLA. That scenario, at least makes some sort of sense. But it still defies reality.

A few weeks ago, I would have felt the same way you do. No way this would ever happen. The PAC would never have any interest in doing anything except stay exactly as they are. And they still may.

But I increasingly hear rumblings that not everyone in the PAC is happy about that status quo. I don't believe there is anything the PAC can do collectively to improve their situation. I don't believe they can attract anyone who will make them stronger on the field, or who will increase their revenues. If dissatisfaction with the status quo is strong enough to make some members consider alternatives, those alternative include only the B1G or the Big 12.

I also don't see much likelihood that the 4 California schools, and only those four, would move to the B1G, which I believe is the only viable alternative to what I proposed. Already at 14 members, I think there are serious limits to how many additional members the B1G could absorb. At 10 current members, the Big 12 has a lot more flexibility, and could accommodate enough west coast teams to facilitate critical mass from a scheduling/travel standpoint. I don't think the B1G can do that.

I say only viable alternative at least in part beause these six schools are the only ones who would improve the finances of the Big 12. That is, they are the only ones I believe the Big 12 would want to add. I further believe that either all 4 Cali schools go together or none do.

All that leads me to consider what I would have considered unthinkable very recently, and which you still consider unthinkable.